On 08/09/2023 16:46, Big Al wrote:
> On 9/8/23 08:18, this is what Henry Crun wrote:
>> On 08/09/2023 14:15, bad sector wrote:
>>> On 9/8/23 00:54, azigni wrote:
>>>> On 9/6/23 18:04, bad sector wrote:
>>>>> They have this SNAP system, ...snipped
>>>>>
>>>> You do not have use Ubuntu any flavor with Snap or Flatpaks. This is Linux after all. Google removing snap packages
>>>> from Ubuntu, it is pretty simple.
>>>
>>> I think it was a mozilla package that went snap by default, true there WAS an alternative way and I tried it once,
>>> but I don't have time to muck around with workarounds so the bundled default software manager has to do it my way by
>>> default or optionally. Finally the problem isn't snap per-se. I have no axes to grind about flatpacks (well, maybe a
>>> tomahawk or two) but the charateristic that it sabotages home links is a deal braker. It's not a federal case, I
>>> still use the U-Studio but its a black mark until fixed.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I am gradually moving laptop...netbook...eventully desktop from Ub. to MX.
>> Very smooth learning curve, some advantages, some disadvantages.
>> On Ubuntu I have been running for about  year with no snap or flatpak. If only I could avoid the horror that is systemd.
>> We are supposed to have choice, but to choose 'no systemd' immediately implies 'not Ubuntu'
>> Pity 'bout that.
>>
> Can you explain the issue with systemd?   I think Linux Mint uses it and I haven't seen any apparent issues.

My first and main objection is aesthetic. Now I know that is a non-definable, highly personal quantity. It might be
beautifully coded in it's internal working, but the overall efect is one of an all-invading. all-encopmassing entity.
Put it succintly. it breaks the tenet "Do one thing, and do it well."
Systemd defintely does not "Do one thing". As for "do it well", it's difficult to see through the maze of linked
scripts, binary logs and what have you.
As the man said to the judge "I'm a simple man, yer 'oner" And I have simple, linear thought processes, and I find the
flow of systemd - as I might have mentioned - unaesthetic. It was supposed to be a replacement for init, a modest,
well-defined proposition. It has got *WAY* out of hand.

I guess I'm just another grumpy old man.

--
No Micro$oft products were used in the URLs above, or in preparing this message.
Recommended reading: http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html#befor

On 9/8/23 05:15, bad sector wrote:
> On 9/8/23 00:54, azigni wrote:
>> On 9/6/23 18:04, bad sector wrote:
>>> They have this SNAP system, ...snipped
>>>
>> You do not have use Ubuntu any flavor with Snap or Flatpaks. This is
>> Linux after all. Google removing snap packages from Ubuntu, it is
>> pretty simple.
>
> I think it was a mozilla package that went snap by default, true there
> WAS an alternative way and I tried it once, but I don't have time to
> muck around with workarounds so the bundled default software manager has
> to do it my way by default or optionally. Finally the problem isn't snap
> per-se. I have no axes to grind about flatpacks (well, maybe a tomahawk
> or two) but the charateristic that it sabotages home links is a deal
> braker. It's not a federal case, I still use the U-Studio but its a
> black mark until fixed.
>
>
You are either trolling or making a mountain out of a mole hill. There
are several references to remove snap. They all take less than ten
minutes. All you need to do is be able to open a terminal and copy and
paste.

Web browser Search: Ubuntu remove snap

First suggestion of my search: https://itsfoss.com/remove-snap/
Doesn't get easier than than that.

On Fri, 08 Sep 2023 12:28:04 -0400, Henry Crun <mike@rechtman.com> wrote:
> My first and main objection is aesthetic. Now I know that is a non-definable, highly personal quantity. It might be
> beautifully coded in it's internal working, but the overall efect is one of an all-invading. all-encopmassing entity.
> Put it succintly. it breaks the tenet "Do one thing, and do it well."
> Systemd defintely does not "Do one thing". As for "do it well", it's difficult to see through the maze of linked
> scripts, binary logs and what have you.

systemd is not just one thing. It contains many components, each of which do
one thing an does it well.

With initd it just handled scheduling of starting scripts, easily broken by
cyclic dependencies, especially in edge cases.

With systemd, it handles starting things, and restarting them when needed, not
just at boot time. Those scripts may or may not include functions other then
starting and stopping. The edge cases can be handled by custom service rules that
override the defaults.

To do so properly, it also has components to handle things like ensuring file
systems are mounted when needed, as well as other resources such as network
access, etc.

While I disagree with the choice to use binary files for storing the journal,
I understand why the choice was made given that it simplifies the tools that
come with it.

The tools that come with systemd getting information about any given daemon
or the resources they use, including information from early in the boot process
that is not kept by initd.

Learning how to use systemd and all of it's components is a large learning curve.
So was learning how to minimize cyclic dependencies with initd start up scripts.

The more experience I have with it, the more I like it.

Regards, Dave Hodgins

David W. Hodgins wrote:
> It does much
> more than just replace initd, and does so in consistent logical ways.

What is your 'position' on the arguments completely separate from the
init improvement; that many don't like that systemd likes to take
'control' of so many non-init responsibilities?

I guess the systemd idea is that just like init, if systemd can do it
'better', then that should be just fine.

However, it does make it progressively more difficult to 'do without'
systemd, since it is SO much more than an init.

--
Mike Easter

On 9/8/23 14:35, Mike Easter wrote:
> David W. Hodgins wrote:
>> It does much
>> more than just replace initd, and does so in consistent logical ways.
>
> What is your 'position' on the arguments completely separate from the
> init improvement; that many don't like that systemd likes to take
> 'control' of so many non-init responsibilities?
>
> I guess the systemd idea is that just like init, if systemd can do it
> 'better', then that should be just fine.
>
> However, it does make it progressively more difficult to 'do without'
> systemd, since it is SO much more than an init.

The kernel has a sort of monolpoly in linuxland; nothing else should
ever be allowed to come close to that status or it will start dictating
to kernel development. That's my view of it or of anything else with
like attributes (or aims), I use eight different web navigators.

On Fri, 08 Sep 2023 11:25:51 -0400, David W. Hodgins wrote:

>
> When Mageia first implemented systemd, I was not in favour of it at first, but
> decided to give it a fair chance and dig into it.
>

There is nothing wrong with systemd per se.

The problem is that distro maintainers see it totally as an
"either/or" issue.

GNU/Linux is all about CHOICE, and, to my knowledge, there are
only two distros that offer users a choice regarding systemd:
Gentoo and Linux From Scratch (LFS).

Why has systemd gained such a near-complete hegemony? Why
is there this egregious lack of choice?

Could it be that offering a choice would be too much work
for the distro maintainers? I strongly believe that this
is perhaps the major, if not only, factor.

My opinion is simple and clear:

If a GNU/Linux distro cannot offer CHOICE then it should
quietly step out of the game.

GNU/Linux is based in CHOICE, and the laziness/incompetence
of distro maintainers is no excuse to allow systemd to run
rampant.

I tremendously appreciate the fortitude and competence
of the Gentoo and LFS maintainers for continuing to offer
true and viable CHOICE.

On 9/8/23 15:56, Nux Vomica wrote:
> On Fri, 08 Sep 2023 11:25:51 -0400, David W. Hodgins wrote:
>
>>
>> When Mageia first implemented systemd, I was not in favour of it at first, but
>> decided to give it a fair chance and dig into it.
>>
>
> There is nothing wrong with systemd per se.
>
> The problem is that distro maintainers see it totally as an
> "either/or" issue.
>
> GNU/Linux is all about CHOICE, and, to my knowledge, there are
> only two distros that offer users a choice regarding systemd:
> Gentoo and Linux From Scratch (LFS).

Slackware, Artix, Devuan?

> Why has systemd gained such a near-complete hegemony? Why
> is there this egregious lack of choice?
>
> Could it be that offering a choice would be too much work
> for the distro maintainers? I strongly believe that this
> is perhaps the major, if not only, factor.
>
> My opinion is simple and clear:
>
> If a GNU/Linux distro cannot offer CHOICE then it should
> quietly step out of the game.

A+

> GNU/Linux is based in CHOICE, and the laziness/incompetence
> of distro maintainers is no excuse to allow systemd to run
> rampant.
>
> I tremendously appreciate the fortitude and competence
> of the Gentoo and LFS maintainers for continuing to offer
> true and viable CHOICE.
>
>

On 9/8/23 14:08, azigni wrote:

> There
> are several references to remove snap. They all take less than ten
> minutes. All you need to do is be able to open a terminal and copy and
> paste.
>
> Web browser Search: Ubuntu remove snap
>
> First suggestion of my search: https://itsfoss.com/remove-snap/
> Doesn't get easier than than that.

I'll look into it on Sunday, to see how the default package manager then
installs/upgrades/reinstalls all my apps without snap. Its the apps that
rule, OSes are after all just plugins for them.

--
Fridays are Tumbleweed days: openSUSE Tumbleweed, DM=sddm, GPT,
Kernel=6.4.12-1-default on x86_64,DE=KDE,ST=x11,grub2,BIOS-boot
https://imgur.com/mWjMS5W.png https://imgur.com/RsbswMP.png

Nux Vomica wrote:
> GNU/Linux is all about CHOICE, and, to my knowledge, there are only
> two distros that offer users a choice regarding systemd: Gentoo and
> Linux From Scratch (LFS).

MX & AntiX allow the user to choose at *boot time* whether to 'activate'
systemd. If inactivated, the system uses a shim in place of systemd; if
activated the system uses systemd.

That seems the most 'convenient' way to use or not use systemd, unless
one is also anti-systemd-shim.

> Systemd-shim allows a system to boot up using a SYSV init, but still
> be able to support the modern programs that depend on systemd. It is
> not perfect, but it allows for a Linux distribution to support both
> SYSV init and systemd as a choice in the grub boot menu. MX Linux
> does just that. Debian used to support systemd-shim, but support was
> dropped in Debian Buster.

--
Mike Easter

On Fri, 08 Sep 2023 14:35:18 -0400, Mike Easter <MikeE@ster.invalid> wrote:

> David W. Hodgins wrote:
>> It does much
>> more than just replace initd, and does so in consistent logical ways.
>
> What is your 'position' on the arguments completely separate from the
> init improvement; that many don't like that systemd likes to take
> 'control' of so many non-init responsibilities?
>
> I guess the systemd idea is that just like init, if systemd can do it
> 'better', then that should be just fine.
>
> However, it does make it progressively more difficult to 'do without'
> systemd, since it is SO much more than an init.

All of the features included in systemd logically belong together. A system level
application can not start if the resources it needs are not available. Ensuring
all the resources needed are available, and starting them if need be makes sense.
Same with mounts, and starting other applications at user login or on demand.

It's becoming harder not to use systemd because it simplifies things for
applications that don't have to duplicate code to make sure things they need
are available.

It's a system resource and application start/stop manager. While it's much more
than a boot time daemon starter, everything in it makes sense to integrate into
it, in my opinion.

The biggest problem with the way it was introduced was with the impression
given (though never stated that I can remember) that it was only intended as
a replacement for initd.

Regards, Dave Hodgins

David W. Hodgins wrote:
> The biggest problem with the way it was introduced was with the
> impression given (though never stated that I can remember) that it
> was only intended as a replacement for initd.

That was the /purpose/ of its introduction in 2010, a significantly needed
purpose.

wp
> They sought to surpass the efficiency of the init daemon in several
> ways. They wanted to improve the software framework for expressing
> dependencies, to allow more processing to be done concurrently or in
> parallel during system booting, and to reduce the computational
> overhead of the shell.

By 2014, Poeterring saw it/ his idea/ more broadly as:
> A system and service manager (manages both the system, by applying
> various configurations, and its services)

> A software platform (serves as a basis for developing other
> software)

> The glue between applications and the kernel (provides various
> interfaces that expose functionalities provided by the kernel)

.... and thus the 'mission creep' that became so upsetting to anti-systemd.

The anti-/s see it as 'Hitlerian' - going from party intelligence agent to
Nazi party orator to leader of the Nazi party to Chancellor of a
coalition to dictator and suppression of the other parties. Absolute
dictator, and not a benevolent one.

I would say systemd's success at that is based on what you said;

DH
> While it's much more than a boot time daemon starter, everything in
> it makes sense to integrate into it, in my opinion.

--
Mike Easter

On 08/09/2023 22:56, Nux Vomica wrote:
> On Fri, 08 Sep 2023 11:25:51 -0400, David W. Hodgins wrote:
>
>>
>> When Mageia first implemented systemd, I was not in favour of it at first, but
>> decided to give it a fair chance and dig into it.
>>
>
> There is nothing wrong with systemd per se.
>
> The problem is that distro maintainers see it totally as an
> "either/or" issue.
>
> GNU/Linux is all about CHOICE, and, to my knowledge, there are
> only two distros that offer users a choice regarding systemd:
> Gentoo and Linux From Scratch (LFS).
>
> Why has systemd gained such a near-complete hegemony? Why
> is there this egregious lack of choice?
>
> Could it be that offering a choice would be too much work
> for the distro maintainers? I strongly believe that this
> is perhaps the major, if not only, factor.
>
> My opinion is simple and clear:
>
> If a GNU/Linux distro cannot offer CHOICE then it should
> quietly step out of the game.
>
> GNU/Linux is based in CHOICE, and the laziness/incompetence
> of distro maintainers is no excuse to allow systemd to run
> rampant.
>
> I tremendously appreciate the fortitude and competence
> of the Gentoo and LFS maintainers for continuing to offer
> true and viable CHOICE.
>
>

Minor datapoint;
Check MX Linux
Possibly meant more for home/non-commercial use, quite user-friendly

--
No Micro$oft products were used in the URLs above, or in preparing this message.
Recommended reading: http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html#befor

On 09/09/2023 4:39, Mike Easter wrote:
> David W. Hodgins wrote:

....Snipped...

> The anti-/s see it as 'Hitlerian' - going from party intelligence agent to
> Nazi party orator to leader of the Nazi party to Chancellor of a
> coalition to dictator and suppression of the other parties. Absolute
> dictator, and not a benevolent one.
>
> I would say systemd's success at that is based on what you said;
>
> DH
>> While it's much more than a boot time daemon starter, everything in it makes sense to integrate into it, in my opinion.
>
>
>

I invoke Godwn's Law!!

--
No Micro$oft products were used in the URLs above, or in preparing this message.
Recommended reading: http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html#befor

"David W. Hodgins" <dwhodgins@nomail.afraid.org> writes:
> The biggest problem with the way it was introduced was with the impression
> given (though never stated that I can remember) that it was only intended as
> a replacement for initd.

I’m not sure that’s historical. In the original announcement in 2010[1]
it already extends beyond the sysvinit responsibilities to include
socket activation, filesystem mounting, cgroup management, logging and
login accounting, with plans already in place for swap management,
session management and job scheduling. Anyone who imagined it had a
narrower focus wasn’t paying attention.

The name is a bit of a hint, really.

[1] http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/systemd.html

--
https://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/

On 2023-09-08, Nux Vomica <nv@linux.rocks> wrote:
> On Fri, 08 Sep 2023 11:25:51 -0400, David W. Hodgins wrote:

> If a GNU/Linux distro cannot offer CHOICE then it should
> quietly step out of the game.

Thus reducing choice further?

--
Jasen.
🇺🇦 Слава Україні

On 2023-09-08 17:03, bad sector wrote:
> On 9/8/23 14:08, azigni wrote:
>
>
>> There are several references to remove snap. They all take less than
>> ten minutes. All you need to do is be able to open a terminal and copy
>> and paste.
>>
>> Web browser Search: Ubuntu remove snap
>>
>> First suggestion of my search: https://itsfoss.com/remove-snap/
>> Doesn't get easier than than that.
>
> I'll look into it on Sunday, to see how the default package manager then
> installs/upgrades/reinstalls all my apps without snap. Its the apps that
> rule, OSes are after all just plugins for them.

"I advise against removing snap support from Ubuntu as it is built-in
with the system. Advanced users may do this only if they are not afraid
of the command line and troubleshooting the system. The latest releases
of Ubuntu has snap integrated deeply. Also, many Ubuntu-specific
features, like livepatch, will only work with snap enabled. As a
suggestion, do not perform this on your main production machine, unless
you know what you are doing."

When I read stuff like this I normally run like hell, but this time I
just backed up the 'buntu partition and went at it. Turns out that
Firefox-v-nonsnap was already installed and the only snap stuff left was
snap system files. Killed every one of them. We'll see where the road
goes, for now (because I also want to do something useful with my time
and the zasf-dssi is absent in the installed Rosegarden) I get problems
associated with THAT (another thread belonging in alt.os.linux.ubuntu only).

--
Saturdays are Ubuntu-Studio days: Ubuntu 22.04.3 LTS
(Jammy Jellyfish),Kernel=5.15.0-43-lowlatency on x86_64,
DM=sddm,DE=KDE,ST=x11,grub2,GPT,BIOS-boot
https://imgur.com/1swkolq.png https://imgur.com/RsbswMP.png

On 9/9/23 6:48 AM, bad sector wrote:
> On 2023-09-08 17:03, bad sector wrote:
>> On 9/8/23 14:08, azigni wrote:
>>
>>
>>> There are several references to remove snap. They all take less than
>>> ten minutes. All you need to do is be able to open a terminal and
>>> copy and paste.
>>>
>>> Web browser Search: Ubuntu remove snap
>>>
>>> First suggestion of my search: https://itsfoss.com/remove-snap/
>>> Doesn't get easier than than that.
>>
>> I'll look into it on Sunday, to see how the default package manager
>> then installs/upgrades/reinstalls all my apps without snap. Its the
>> apps that rule, OSes are after all just plugins for them.
>
>
> "I advise against removing snap support from Ubuntu as it is built-in
> with the system. Advanced users may do this only if they are not
> afraid of the command line and troubleshooting the system. The latest
> releases of Ubuntu has snap integrated deeply. Also, many
> Ubuntu-specific features, like livepatch, will only work with snap
> enabled. As a suggestion, do not perform this on your main production
> machine, unless you know what you are doing."
>
> When I read stuff like this I normally run like hell, but this time I
> just backed up the 'buntu partition and went at it. Turns out that
> Firefox-v-nonsnap was already installed and the only snap stuff left was
> snap system files. Killed every one of them. We'll see where the road
> goes, for now (because I also want to do something useful with my time
> and the zasf-dssi is absent in the installed Rosegarden) I get
> problems associated with THAT (another thread belonging in
> alt.os.linux.ubuntu only).
>
>
>
Reminds me of the good old days when M$ claimed that Internet Explorer
was deeply integrated into the OS, and the court case that came out of
this entwining.

Le 08-09-2023, Nux Vomica <nv@linux.rocks> a écrit :
>
> Why has systemd gained such a near-complete hegemony?

Because SysV is crap, nothing else which could really compete existed at
the time and when systemd arrived it was a blessing all the distro
accepted.

The alternatives can be good for single users, but they are far from
good enough for companies. And unlike Windows who provides different
systems for servers and for desktop, Linux distro provide the same offer
for server and for desktop. I know, you can download, for example ubuntu
server and ubutu desktop, but it's only a matter of selected packages.
Not a matter of different offer. You can install unbuntu server and
transform it into kubuntu in deinstalling some packages and installing
others for example.

> Why is there this egregious lack of choice?

I'd say, for two reasons. The first one, I understand, the choice of the
init system has a lot of impacts about the rest of the boot process. So,
having to choices can bring a lot of work.

The second reason, is gnome. From what I understood, gnome without
systemd is hard work. I know, guix people managed it, but it's the
exception, not the rule. And as gnome is heavily used a lot of distros
chose to use systemd to be able to provide gnome more easily.

> Could it be that offering a choice would be too much work
> for the distro maintainers? I strongly believe that this
> is perhaps the major, if not only, factor.

Of course it is.

> If a GNU/Linux distro cannot offer CHOICE then it should
> quietly step out of the game.

What you don't consider is once they choose to offer choice, they have
to support it. And when you have a lot of users, if you offer a lot of
choices, you start spending more time to answer complaints than to build
new features. And it's really an important point.

And that's a really good point of the number of distros everyone
complains about. Each one can be focused on a few choices for a lot of
users.

For a start, I see a lot of people with a Windows/Mac very slow old
computer. On this computer they can install Linux and give their
computer a second life. But remember, the people don't know anything
about Linux, they only heard they will be able to still use their old
computer with it.

So, you don't start asking questions about
systemd/SysV/shepherd/whatever, then about wayland/xorg and fis/zsh/bash
and I don't know what. They have no idea about it, they don't care and
they shouldn't have to care. So we make the choices for them: which one
is the easiest to use, which one will be stable and which one they are
able to find help around them easiest. And, it's well enough. So you
choose for them or the distro makes the choice for them. It's good for a
start.

And once they have some habit about Linux, they can tell what they want
to improve. And we can speak about choices with them. And that's the
great part. Either they only need to install a new package, or they can
choose a distro more fitted with their needs. You like Archlinux but
would have runit instead of systemd, great, just install artix.

You have the choice with Linux, the lot of distros grant you the choice
one distro isn't able to provide. And it's great. As the distros are
opensource, you can base your own on the one you like with a difference.

> GNU/Linux is based in CHOICE,

Yes. It's the reason each time I install Linux on a beginner computer, I
install more than one WM. Explaining the way to switch between them. And
instilling the possibility to chose between different options. Because
explaining the difference between SysV and systemd or between xorg and
wayland to a beginner is a waste of time. But showing the differences
between WM and how easy it is to switch, it's the first and easier step
to explain them to stop doing what someone else told them to do.

With Linux, you don't adapt to your computer, but you make your computer
adapt to your usage. And the default choices done by the distro
maintainers are just that: default choices. Which can be changed. Or the
distro can be changed if needed. But first, you discover and then you
choose.

And the distro have to make some choices. And they let other people make
other choices.

--
Si vous avez du temps à perdre :
https://scarpet42.gitlab.io

Henry Crun wrote:
> Mike Easter wrote:
>
>> The anti-/s see it as 'Hitlerian' - going from party intelligence
>> agent to Nazi party orator to leader of the Nazi party to
>> Chancellor of a coalition to dictator and suppression of the other
>> parties. Absolute dictator, and not a benevolent one.
>
> I invoke Godwn's Law!!
>
:-) I knew /someone/ was going to say that :-)

In 1994, Mike Godwin wrote a fun article for Wired mag.

https://www.wired.com/1994/10/godwin-if-2/

> He stated that he introduced Godwin's law in 1990 as an experiment in memetics

The/His Wired article also provides various corollaries.

And, I tend to agree w/ DWH's position, even while bringing up some
anti-systemd arguments.

My everyday driver is a systemd distro and I'm also a 'fan of' MX Linux.

--
Mike Easter

On Sat, 9 Sep 2023 09:30:34 -0000 (UTC), Jasen Betts wrote:

>
>> If a GNU/Linux distro cannot offer CHOICE then it should
>> quietly step out of the game.
>
> Thus reducing choice further?
>

No. Reducing anti-choice.

On Fri, 08 Sep 2023 18:47:30 -0400, David W. Hodgins wrote:

>
> It's becoming harder not to use systemd because it simplifies things for
> applications that don't have to duplicate code to make sure things they need
> are available.
>

Oh, is it?

I have never ever used that P.O.S. known as "systemd" and have never ever
experienced any issues whatsoever regarding software usage.

Would you care to give some specific examples where systemd is essential?

In my opinion, any GNU/Linux software developer that creates software that
is dependent on systemd should be ostracized from the FOSS community.

But that will potentially implicate all the RedHat/IBM lackeys at freedesktop.org.

People stand up! Purge these commercial influences from FOSS.

On Fri, 8 Sep 2023 18:39:54 -0700, Mike Easter wrote:

>
>> The glue between applications and the kernel (provides various
>> interfaces that expose functionalities provided by the kernel)
>
> ... and thus the 'mission creep' that became so upsetting to anti-systemd.
>

There never was any "mission creep."

The RedHat/IBM lackey Poettering had stated from the very outset that
systemd was/is intended to be the one-and-only interface between the
Linux kernel and user space.

Fortunately, after more than a DECADE, he and his cronies have failed
to achieve that goal. Note the great failure of their "bus1" initiative.

But the attempt will continue, and all those fools who support systemd
are complicit in this willful expropriation of GNU/Linux by a corporate
agenda.

On Sat, 09 Sep 2023 08:29:24 +0100, Richard Kettlewell wrote:

>
> I’m not sure that’s historical. In the original announcement in 2010[1]
> it already extends beyond the sysvinit responsibilities to include
> socket activation, filesystem mounting, cgroup management, logging and
> login accounting, with plans already in place for swap management,
> session management and job scheduling. Anyone who imagined it had a
> narrower focus wasn’t paying attention.
>

Exactly! Great point!

But there are multitudes of fools and dupes who are NOT paying attention.

The stated goal of systemd, as has been explicated in formal documents,
is the takeover and control of all user-space possibilities so that
COMMERCIAL SOFTWARE, ala RedHat/IBM, will have an easy time.

Richard Stallman and Linus Torvalds did not create their masterpieces
so that grubbing commercial enterprises could easily benefit.

The sooner systemd is rejected by all the better.

Le 09-09-2023, Nux Vomica <nv@linux.rocks> a écrit :
>
> The RedHat/IBM lackey Poettering

Not exactly. Poettering was employed by Read Hat. True. But at the
beginning when Poettering wen see Read hat to explain what needed to be
done, Red Hat refused it. Then Poettering, on his own time, worked on
systemd. Then he get back to his employer and told him: look at what I
did, it's the way to go. And only then Red Hat accepted what he did.

There are a lot of issues with Poettering, but to do what your employer
told you not to do and come back to him to prove him wrong is not the
lackey way.

--
Si vous avez du temps à perdre :
https://scarpet42.gitlab.io

On 09 Sep 2023 14:20:42 GMT, Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote:

>>
>> Why has systemd gained such a near-complete hegemony?
>
> Because SysV is crap,
>

Says who? Says you? Who the fuck are you?

But SysV is not nearly the only init system available on GNU/Linux.
There are many others, but I'll let you do the research.

>
> The alternatives can be good for single users, but they are far from
> good enough for companies.
>

Well then let companies use systemd.

You do not understand my original point because you, like all the others,
are a total idiot.

I originally said that there is nothing wrong with systemd PER SE.

The problem is that the distros see it as a completely "either/or" issue.
That is to say, in their view, GNU/Linux has to either be systemd or it
has to be something else.

This view is horribly wrong. Systemd should only be a choice among many
choices and all distros should offer ALL choices or they should leave
the world of FOSS.

Is that too complicated for your idiotic mind to comprehend?

>
> The second reason, is gnome.
>

Fuck GNOME. I've never used GNOME and I never will use GNOME.
It is totally UNNECESSARY.

But GNOME spills over into GTK+ and the latest versions of GTK+
are ridiculous lunacy.

QED the freedesktop/RedHat folly that is poisoning GNU/Linux.